Unfinished Business with North Korea

North Korea's apparent nuclear test is not at all surprising and should be a stark lesson for the US and its allies on the perils of not pressing and then achieving total victory. This lesson must be applied to today's war against Islamo-fascism.

The Korean war in the early 1950's, which started when the North invaded the South, ended with the status-quo ante of the democratic South and the Communist North divided by the same border that was crossed at the start of hostilities. The unfinished business left in its wake sewed the seeds that grew into today's nuclear peril. Similar or worse dark consequences could result from allowing Iran to continue its provocative ways or by not winning in Iraq.

War should not be viewed in the narrow context of a particular military battle; rather it should be seen as one of many tools that is used to achieve total victory of one population over another population. That does not mean that the population must be destroyed, but the ideology surely must. The reason we are facing a nuclear North Korea today is because the West viewed the conflict in 1950 as a border dispute between armies rather than a major clash of Communism vs. Freedom. The North, and thus Communism was preserved and lived to fight another day, and that day has now come.

Destroying an ideology does not always necessitate war, but it does necessitate the will to use military force and it does require mobilization of all aspects of society. For instance, the West won the Cold War because leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher insisted on total victory. They did not accept the notion that the Soviet Union could coexist in a world of free peoples. Their steadfastness crushed a nuclear armed enemy and obliterated the Soviet Union - total victory. In this case, war was not necessary. However, there are other examples where war has been necessary, such as with Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan and we must always be prepared for that potential.

The lesson to be applied today is that the US and its allies must mobilize for total victory over Islamo-fascism. The US's failure more than 50 years ago has now destabilized an entire region, put South Korea at risk and there is very little that can be done about it. We will not have to wait 50 years to experience the consequences of not mobilizing immediately for total victory against Islamo-fascism.

Mark Foley in Perspective

Yeah, I know - a powerful man elected to Federal government who can't control his sexual urges and who makes lewd passes at impressionable kids and young adults should be tarred, feathered and abandoned by his political party.

And that's exactly what happened to Bill Clinton.

Oh, wait a minute. That didn't happen. His party rallied around him and a massive defense was mounted to protect Clinton from taking responsibility.

I know Clinton was a President and Foley a Congressman, but it is still instructive to examine the differences in the responses by them and their parties. Clinton first lied about having sexual relations with an intern. When that didn't work he argued about the definition of sexual relations. (He didn't think he had any, when every 10-year old in the country knew what he did met the definition.) And when that didn't work, he mobilized the Democratic party in a very vigorous and successful attack on the messengers; Ken Starr and the vast right wing conspiracy. The Democrats went along with this plan and lost power, while Clinton rehabilitated himself in the public's eye.

Contrast that with the response on the Republican side to Mark Foley. He resigned the next day, the President publicly displayed his disgust and there isn't one Republican leader standing by him. Some might say that what he did was worse and therefore the Republicans had no choice. Really? I haven't read about cigars and stained clothes yet.

Okay, okay, I know, the Republicans would rally behind their president like Democrats did for Clinton. Or maybe not - President Nixon didn't fare too well within his own party. Sure, but what he did was really, really bad and Democrats take responsibility when congressmen go astray too. Oh, you must mean like Edward Kennedy (leaving the scene of a one-car, alcohol induced accident, resulting in the death of his mistress).

Neither party has a monopoly on personal morals, but in this political season it is instructive to view the differences in the ways each party responds to scandals when they occur. For the most part, Republicans take personal responsibility and Democrats attack the messenger in an effort to maintain their position. President Clinton is a hero in the Democratic party and President Nixon was a pariah from the point he was forced to resign. Edward Kennedy is considered an esteemed member of the Senate and Mark Foley will always be a disgraced former Republican member of the House.

Republicans Vote to Restrict Liberty

Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. The bill passed 2 days ago that effectively bans the use of credit cards for placing bets on internet gambling sites is a major unnecessary blow to liberty. It is also hypocritical in the extreme and so overtly political that it will backfire.

First liberty. As much as gambling to many people is a vice to be avoided, it is none of the Government's business to look for crafty ways to legislate moral standards. Regulation? Maybe. But why should Americans be made to live to the absolute moral standards of any Congressman? Morality can never be legislated and should be left to family, community, leaders and individual choice. Government's role should only be to insure that one man's freedom does not infringe on another man's freedom.

Now hypocrisy. This one is easy. How many state lotteries are there, and how much advertising is there for these lucrative activities? A ton. So, it's okay for the Government to setup a numbers racket, insure a monopoly by banning the private sector from competing, advertise to disadvantaged and vulnerable widows and orphans, set impossibly stupid odds for someone to win, but its not okay for someone to exercise their free will to play online poker. I wonder if one of the major proponents of this legislation, Arizona Senator, John Kyl (R) will call for an end to lotteries in his state?

Overtly political. Republicans are going to the Karl Rove playbook of 2004 by promoting a social issue to rally conservatives to the polls, as they did succesfully with gay marriage. This time it won't work. Internet gambling is not a big enough issue for conservatives and Democrats won't position themselves in opposition, so it will be a dead issue to the electorate. The beauty of Karl Rove's strategy in 2004 was that gay marriage was actually on the ballot in many states and he knew that conservatives would show up to vote for that issue alone and while there would also pull the lever for Republicans. Internet gambling is not on the ballot, so even if it was a big issue to conservatives, it does not provide any further incentive to get to the voting booths. This is such a badly mangled political move by Congressional Republicans that the electorate will see through it, and they will be angry.

President Bush has not yet signed this wrong-headed bill. I hope that Republicans come to their senses and let it die without the President's signature. The Democrats are supposed to be the party that over-legislates and resricts liberty. If Republicans want to act like Democrats, Americans will vote for the real Democrats. And then the country might get a real gambling ban that will make the current Republicans wish they never started down this road.

Should Rumsfeld Go?

The drumbeat for Rumsfeld's resignation is growing louder and more intense. The calls have come from predictable places like anti-war liberals, but they have increasingly come from the military establishment and Republicans who are not rushing to his defense. The answer to the question of whether Rumsfeld should go is yes, but very careful attention to the timing and rationale are extremely important for the global war against Islamo-Fascism.

Before I delve into the reasons why Rumsfeld should go, I'd like to make it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq being a mistake. It is not a mistake. It is a critical central battle in the overall war, and victory in Iraq is absolutely essential to establishing lasting peace and security in the future. Therefore, allowing the Democrats to use Rumsfeld's job performance as a hook to hang a debate over the validity of the war itself would be disastrous. That is why the President Bush should definitely not pull the trigger during the current political season.

So when should Rumsfeld go and why?

Rumsfeld should go shortly after the mid-term elections and he should go, because he has failed to win the war in Iraq in a timely manner. For this plan to be successful, the Republicans must retain control of the Senate so that Mr. Bush can get his choice for the job confirmed. Although Mr. Rumsfeld has enormous experience and provides tireless dedication, something is badly amiss when the USA is pinned down by a ragtag group of cowardly militants. It is easy to get into a debate about tactics and strategy. Was his war plan sufficient? Are there enough troops committed to the job? Are Iraqis being trained fast enough? The fact is that there is any number of rational points to be made on either side. But, the bottom line is that the war is still raging and the USA has not yet won . This should be unacceptable to the Commander in Chief, and I hope he will not allow personal loyalty to get in the way of sound judgment.

Mr. Bush should immediately begin secretly interviewing candidates to replace Mr. Rumsfeld to be available to take over shortly after the mid-term elections. He should determine the best candidate based on canvassing their views on the following questions:

1. What should the war plan be to win the war by the end of 2007 and do the rules of engagement support a quick end to the war?
2. What should the plan be to rally full political support from Republicans, "conservative" Democrats and the military establishment?
3. What plan should be put in place to engage in offensive, first strike operations against enemies around the world?

The President must insure Mr. Rumsfeld's replacement has a plan that provides a victory in Iraq to the next occupant of the White House. The future of the country and Mr. Bush's legacy are dependent upon that victory and as talented, committed and briliant Mr. Rumsfeld may be, he has not succeeded yet and there isn't any time left to wait and see if his plans will come to fruition.

Dick Morris on Bill Clinton

Dick Morris has written an excellent fact-based critique of Ex-president Clinton's infamous performance last Sunday. For a reminder of that Clinton fiasco click on the following link, then return to read Dick Morris' rebuttal.

Clinton Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4

Dick Morris Rebuttal
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html

As you read the article, keep in mind that Dick Morris was a very close confidante of the President while he was in office, so much so that Clinton's better known advisors, like George Stephanopoulos complained bitterly of their lack of access in favor of Morris. This is a man that knows Clinton intimately and is eminently qualified to pass judgment.

Powerful Message in Support of Israel

Click below to see a powerful message in support of Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN_LxmkTSX4

Un-presidential Bill Clinton Unleashed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4

Bill Clinton really believes that the "right wing" is out to get him, especially Fox News. You've got to watch this clip of his interview with Chris Wallace, where he is questioned about whether his administration did enough to combat Bin Laden.

His shrill, red-faced, finger pointing response was eerily similar to another famous untruth by President Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". Yeah, right.

He did have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and he clearly didn't do enough to deal with Bin Laden. The proof is in the gaping hole that was once New York's World Trade Center. But promoting this fact is not a right wing anti-Clinton conspiracy. Clinton is not the only President that hasn't done enough to combat the rise of Islamo-fascism. In fact all presidents, including the current Bush (prior to 9/11) were asleep at the helm.

Clinton's angry denials are not befitting of a US President and do nothing to constructively advance the nation's knowledge of how to deal with the global threat. Ex-Presidents should never be seen to lower themselves to participating in debates about their own place in the history books. Facts, over time speak for themselves. This angry tirade degrades the dignity of an ex-President just as his actions while President degraded the dignity of the office of the President.

Republican Election Hopes Revived

You may not know it by reading the New York Times or watching CNN, but the President has dramatically revived Republican chances for holding on to both houses this November. Bush has remained consistent and strong in his leadership on protecting America and linking the Iraq war with the wider war against Islamo-fascists and Americans are beginning to pay careful attention. This has crystallized through the President's position on how to conduct surveillance, trials and detention of enemies, which is not only right, it is politically astute.

Democrats and some very mis-guided Republicans have predictably attacked the President on these issues, making outlandish claims that he is harming the US's moral position in the world and creating international enemies. Whether it was fighting the Soviets last century or fighting the Islamo-fascists today, the Democrats always make the same dumb mistake. By attacking the moral under-pinning of the US position, they embolden and legitimize obvious enemies to jump into political bed with them which always turns voters off.

Here's one simple recent example: Hollywood elites like Danny Glover denounce the President's foreign policy, claiming it is immoral and it creates enemies for America. These same Hollywood elites hold numerous fund raising events for prominent Democrats like Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. Hugo Chavez comes to America, calls the President the devil and says that he can still smell the sulfur. The next day, Hugo Chavez speaks at a church in the US, with Danny Glover present to expand on his Bush bash. Then in complete shock, Democrats run screaming from their burning political house, distancing themselves from Chavez. But it's too late.

When Democrats ask voters to take control of Congress away from Republicans in order to keep Bush in check, the opposite will happen. Voters will choose the party that stands with the morality of President Bush, and deny power to the party that stands with the morality of Hugo Chavez.